And slowly but steadily, each and every one of those mutates into a full-blown operating system, flooding the open-source world with yet more operating systems that implement almost identical APIs.
I don't think it is written in stone that humans cannot program easily write long running processes. I think there is a golden opportunity for OS researchers to tackle this problem. The sticky thorn is going to be how to provide isolation as with VM but without sacrificing performance. Threads violate VM protection within the application but at the expense of reliability--programs crashing when threads are programmed incorrectly. Fast thread/context switching has been in processors with tagged Translation Lookaside Buffers (the processor doesn't have to flush the entire TLB on a context switch) for ages. However, nobody has brought it to the x86.
Fine-grained memory sharing can't be done on systems that rely on paging. I repeat, systems that manage memory using fixed-size pages cannot support fine-grained memory sharing at the operating-system level. The hardware prohibits it.
Really, most of these problems rest on the hardware. We OS guys do what we can, but we have to do it with what we can.
To implement "lightweight" or "fast" threading, operating systems must try to always switch to a thread from the current process when scheduling. If they can't do that, they end up performing a process switch.
And unfortunately, a process switch involves a costly hardware context switch, and for all the work that goes into making chips faster nowadays, nobody has tried to make context switching on a standard x86 faster. Other architectures had tagged TLBs and other optimizations for fast context-switching for ages, but nobody has brought it to a processor on which you or I can run desktop Linux.
Function calls are just a special case of message passing, where the call and return both happen synchronously. Ah, I knew that stupid old lambda calculus would amount to nothing in the end!
The sound quality kicks an iPod's ass, and the unit itself is quite rugged and durable as it has survived a lot of physical abuse. Really? Because the Amazon reviews say you have to watch out for breaking the joystick and that Cowon's tech support sucks. If those statements aren't true then I should definitely get the X5 over the Trekstor Vibez.
Unlike you, most people are not snobs about what we read. If we like something, we keep it, rather attempting to get rid of it just because it will never win a Nobel in literature.
If I and my people run so much, where the fuck are my damned dividends?
Now first of all, I'll have you know that Chabad is an outreach organization of the Hasidic movement that attempts to make Jews observe our religion more. They tend to oppose Zionism, because Zionism came from the secular Jews who demanded that we stop waiting for the Messiah before getting a national home of our own.
Everybody with a tech background knows of the Zionist electronic hijinks Mossad gets into. Define "tech background". Also, please explain the "Zionist" in "Zionist electronic hijinks". It doesn't make sense.
Iraq is a Zionist thing Really? How does America's invasion of Iraq create a Jewish nation-state? Answer: It doesn't, a Jewish nation-state already exists. Stop using "Zionist"/"Zionism" as a pejorative word for everything you despise about Jews. Frankly, nothing is really Zionist any longer. Zionism was fulfilled in May of 1948 with the creation of the modern State of Israel.
Don't worry all us goyim are stupid and don't know what's going on. I guess nobody tells anti-Semites that "goy" and "goyim" are treated as swear-words in Jewish households nowadays. Only a bastard like you actually elicits their use -- you bigoted goy.
Jews ARE the number one problem. How about we do this the old-fashioned way: you try to kill us, we beat you, we eat.
I wasn't a believer in "new anti-Semitism" until I saw people like this, Reddit.com, and pro-Palestinian leftists who somehow sound an awful lot like right-wing fascists.
As a matter of fact, I have seen Reddit lately. After seeing it, I canceled my Reddit account. And I'm planning to vote for relatively leftist candidates.
Of course, it's the Conspiratorial-Anti-Israelism-Verging-into-Anti-Se mitism that I really hated.
Thank you for correcting me, and good luck getting those Muslims to contribute to society. Funny thing, because the Muslims over here (USA) seem to assimilate just as well as everyone else.
It doesn't matter whether you consider them to be "real Jews" or not, my point is that they use religion as justification and that it being a different one than "spread the faith" doesn't mean that it isn't used as a justification.
You deliberately fail to understand. Zionism does not justify itself in religious terms. It is a secular movement by ethnic Jews who desire a homeland more than they desire to keep to religious orthodoxy. It is a nationalist movement, not a religious one. Hence, your attempt to point about a No True Scotsman fallacy fails. Whether the Zionists are "real Jews" or not doesn't matter, because they don't profess to be "real Jews".
I didn't say anything otherwise. My point is that while there are many dividing lines between ingroups and outgroups, religion is one of the most prominent, right after generic fear of foreigners (including patriotism and nationalism as specific forms).
So why does religion deserve elimination any more than nationalism? Or do you think that doing away with all officially-stated separations between groups will make people sit down and sing "Kumbaya" or "Od Yavo Shalom Aleinu" with one another?
Evolution doesn't work that way. Also, it is not me who is religious, thus holding a deathwish (especially Christianity and Islam are effectively death cults due to their promise of heaven, making them much more agressive than any other religion).
Also, if something is selected by evolution, this doesn't mean that it was good, only that it wasn't the worst: Evolution just means avoiding to die before you reproduce, not improving to any actual measure.
And I guarantee you that a religiously moderate Jew (me) will most likely have more children than a fundamentalist atheist (you). So yes, evolution does work that way and I will out-evolve you. Why? Because I believe in separating my group from everybody else, so I don't believe that the rest of the world deserves my/our stuff. I will therefore have more than you and have an easier time attracting a mate and producing children.
If you want proof, just look at your continent's birthrates among white, Christian or atheist native Europeans. Then compare to the birthrates for "brown" Muslim immigrants. Of course, it might have something to do with your economic policies, but I think statistical evidence will show that religion and ingroup-ism leads to more children. Hence, evolution selects for those traits. Baruch ha'Shem.
Also, I have miswritten, I meant "running for office doesn't make any sense", but I think that was obvious.
By your logic, voters would also be right to vote to reinstate slavery, decide to murder some minority etc., i.e. good and evil are only determined by public opinion.
Good and evil are absolute, but I don't define religion as evil by a postulate. I personally think that religiosity has no relevance to a candidates performance as a public servant. In addition, our Constitution enshrines the freedom of *and* from religion. So the voters have every right, morally and legally, to choose a religious or non-religious candidate at their preference. You just seem to be bigoted against religious people.
People always don't vote (which is something different from "not always vote") for those who are good for the job but only for those who make them believe that they are the same as them.
"Always don't vote" == "never vote"... But I digress. Why do you hate democracy? I ask because it sounds a lot like you want to take away the right of voters to vote for whomever they please, which certainly includes the right to vote for batshit-insane nut-cases of any stripe. Don't like what such candidates do? Enforce a Constitution (like our courts refuse to) guaranteeing everyone's fundamental rights!
Ah, nothing like a cup of ad personam in the morning.
Contrary to your delusional presumption that you can read my mind, I don
And if you had read the bible (or even looked at what goes on on the arabian peninsula), you'd know that the Jews also have quite a tendency to get murderous though they do it to get the land promised to them by a voice in their head, not to "spread their word": And if you had known a damned thing about the Jewish religion, you would know that Jews follow the Talmud and its interpretive guidance rather than the simple word of the Torah. You would also have known that the Talmud states that the Jews must wait until God gives them back their land by sending the Messiah rather than retaking by forceful means. Finally, you would have known that due to the aforementioned Talmudic rulings, Zionism is and always has been an almost entirely secular movement on the part of ethnic Jews, including atheists who wouldn't be caught dead in a synagogue.
Religion is a method of dividing humanity in US vs them (pun intended). From this never anything good has come. Wrong and wrong. Humanity always divides into ingroups and outgroups, regardless of the presence or absence of religion. In Soviet Russia, people had an "us vs. them" mentality not only with respect to the Cold War but with respect to getting one's own family the last loaf of bread. This division comes from human nature, and humans evolved it so that their family groups could survive. I would call human evolution that a Good Thing(TM), even if it does leave over a few traits we, in our Intelligent Redesign of humanity, might wish to remove.
Or do you not believe in survival? Excellent, I'll have great fun out-evolving you.
That's the exact same argument by which many Christians claim every western scientific success between about 800 and 1800 CE for themselves: After all, they were all religious. I have never heard Christians claim any such thing, so I honestly could not say.
You completely ignore that even in the so "enlightened" West, not being religious still carries severe sanctions - being by far the worst in the US, where you can't run for office unless you declare allegiance at least to some god. Apparently, you have never even heard of continental Western Europe, where atheism competes neck-and-neck with Christianity and Islam for Largest Religious Opinion. And of course, in the United States you can run for any office while atheist. And of course, the voters have the right to despise you for any reason they wish.
You have done nothing but argue from the postulates that religion is uniformly barbaric, violent, and illogical while atheism is the very definition of enlightenment. You have shown nothing to prove your assertions or postulates except your own ignorance of others' religions and your definite anti-Semitism.
Most people find them entertaining, more because of how hilariously crazy and uninformed they are. Really? I find them rambling and lacking in the very basics of comedy.
You know why they don't get complaints from Jews? Because in the past century, the Jewish population of Europe (including England) shrank by an order of magnitude. You know why? Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.
They don't get complaints from Jews because there are barely any Jews left there to complain!
First of all, bullshit. Put down the Sam Harris books and go outside for a while. You might find that the large majority of your perfectly-tolerant neighbors and fellow citizens believe in a religion. Unless, of course, you live in a fundamentalist area, in which case you are simply reacting to your environment.
Next, not all religions demand that believers "Spread the Word". Examples of those that don't: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, the Ancient Greek Religion. In fact, I do believe that Islam and Christianity are the only two evangelistic religions. Woops, there goes your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
And slowly but steadily, each and every one of those mutates into a full-blown operating system, flooding the open-source world with yet more operating systems that implement almost identical APIs.
Fine-grained memory sharing can't be done on systems that rely on paging. I repeat, systems that manage memory using fixed-size pages cannot support fine-grained memory sharing at the operating-system level. The hardware prohibits it.
Really, most of these problems rest on the hardware. We OS guys do what we can, but we have to do it with what we can.
To implement "lightweight" or "fast" threading, operating systems must try to always switch to a thread from the current process when scheduling. If they can't do that, they end up performing a process switch.
And unfortunately, a process switch involves a costly hardware context switch, and for all the work that goes into making chips faster nowadays, nobody has tried to make context switching on a standard x86 faster. Other architectures had tagged TLBs and other optimizations for fast context-switching for ages, but nobody has brought it to a processor on which you or I can run desktop Linux.
Unlike you, most people are not snobs about what we read. If we like something, we keep it, rather attempting to get rid of it just because it will never win a Nobel in literature.
So if I move to New Zealand, I can get a job making "Lord of the Rings" films? Nice.
I'm kind of partial to New Zealand. Does anybody know what kind of technology or Computer Science jobs are available down there?
Now first of all, I'll have you know that Chabad is an outreach organization of the Hasidic movement that attempts to make Jews observe our religion more. They tend to oppose Zionism, because Zionism came from the secular Jews who demanded that we stop waiting for the Messiah before getting a national home of our own. Everybody with a tech background knows of the Zionist electronic hijinks Mossad gets into. Define "tech background". Also, please explain the "Zionist" in "Zionist electronic hijinks". It doesn't make sense. Iraq is a Zionist thing Really? How does America's invasion of Iraq create a Jewish nation-state? Answer: It doesn't, a Jewish nation-state already exists. Stop using "Zionist"/"Zionism" as a pejorative word for everything you despise about Jews. Frankly, nothing is really Zionist any longer. Zionism was fulfilled in May of 1948 with the creation of the modern State of Israel. Don't worry all us goyim are stupid and don't know what's going on. I guess nobody tells anti-Semites that "goy" and "goyim" are treated as swear-words in Jewish households nowadays. Only a bastard like you actually elicits their use -- you bigoted goy. Jews ARE the number one problem. How about we do this the old-fashioned way: you try to kill us, we beat you, we eat.
I wasn't a believer in "new anti-Semitism" until I saw people like this, Reddit.com, and pro-Palestinian leftists who somehow sound an awful lot like right-wing fascists.
Am Yisrael CHAY! Od Avinu CHAY!
OK, I'll still making us look bad now.
As a matter of fact, I have seen Reddit lately. After seeing it, I canceled my Reddit account. And I'm planning to vote for relatively leftist candidates.
e mitism that I really hated.
Of course, it's the Conspiratorial-Anti-Israelism-Verging-into-Anti-S
And the Libertarian said, "Let there be a printing press!" And there was a printing press. And it was good.
So I suppose you haven't heard of Mike Gravel? I'm still waiting for him and Paul to form a ticket together.
Thank you for correcting me, and good luck getting those Muslims to contribute to society. Funny thing, because the Muslims over here (USA) seem to assimilate just as well as everyone else.
It doesn't matter whether you consider them to be "real Jews" or not, my point is that they use religion as justification and that it being a different one than "spread the faith" doesn't mean that it isn't used as a justification.
You deliberately fail to understand. Zionism does not justify itself in religious terms. It is a secular movement by ethnic Jews who desire a homeland more than they desire to keep to religious orthodoxy. It is a nationalist movement, not a religious one. Hence, your attempt to point about a No True Scotsman fallacy fails. Whether the Zionists are "real Jews" or not doesn't matter, because they don't profess to be "real Jews".
I didn't say anything otherwise. My point is that while there are many dividing lines between ingroups and outgroups, religion is one of the most prominent, right after generic fear of foreigners (including patriotism and nationalism as specific forms).
So why does religion deserve elimination any more than nationalism? Or do you think that doing away with all officially-stated separations between groups will make people sit down and sing "Kumbaya" or "Od Yavo Shalom Aleinu" with one another?
Evolution doesn't work that way. Also, it is not me who is religious, thus holding a deathwish (especially Christianity and Islam are effectively death cults due to their promise of heaven, making them much more agressive than any other religion).
Also, if something is selected by evolution, this doesn't mean that it was good, only that it wasn't the worst: Evolution just means avoiding to die before you reproduce, not improving to any actual measure.
And I guarantee you that a religiously moderate Jew (me) will most likely have more children than a fundamentalist atheist (you). So yes, evolution does work that way and I will out-evolve you. Why? Because I believe in separating my group from everybody else, so I don't believe that the rest of the world deserves my/our stuff. I will therefore have more than you and have an easier time attracting a mate and producing children.
If you want proof, just look at your continent's birthrates among white, Christian or atheist native Europeans. Then compare to the birthrates for "brown" Muslim immigrants. Of course, it might have something to do with your economic policies, but I think statistical evidence will show that religion and ingroup-ism leads to more children. Hence, evolution selects for those traits. Baruch ha'Shem.
Also, I have miswritten, I meant "running for office doesn't make any sense", but I think that was obvious.
By your logic, voters would also be right to vote to reinstate slavery, decide to murder some minority etc., i.e. good and evil are only determined by public opinion.
Good and evil are absolute, but I don't define religion as evil by a postulate. I personally think that religiosity has no relevance to a candidates performance as a public servant. In addition, our Constitution enshrines the freedom of *and* from religion. So the voters have every right, morally and legally, to choose a religious or non-religious candidate at their preference. You just seem to be bigoted against religious people.
People always don't vote (which is something different from "not always vote") for those who are good for the job but only for those who make them believe that they are the same as them.
"Always don't vote" == "never vote"... But I digress. Why do you hate democracy? I ask because it sounds a lot like you want to take away the right of voters to vote for whomever they please, which certainly includes the right to vote for batshit-insane nut-cases of any stripe. Don't like what such candidates do? Enforce a Constitution (like our courts refuse to) guaranteeing everyone's fundamental rights!
Ah, nothing like a cup of ad personam in the morning.
Contrary to your delusional presumption that you can read my mind, I don
Or do you not believe in survival? Excellent, I'll have great fun out-evolving you. That's the exact same argument by which many Christians claim every western scientific success between about 800 and 1800 CE for themselves: After all, they were all religious. I have never heard Christians claim any such thing, so I honestly could not say. You completely ignore that even in the so "enlightened" West, not being religious still carries severe sanctions - being by far the worst in the US, where you can't run for office unless you declare allegiance at least to some god. Apparently, you have never even heard of continental Western Europe, where atheism competes neck-and-neck with Christianity and Islam for Largest Religious Opinion. And of course, in the United States you can run for any office while atheist. And of course, the voters have the right to despise you for any reason they wish.
You have done nothing but argue from the postulates that religion is uniformly barbaric, violent, and illogical while atheism is the very definition of enlightenment. You have shown nothing to prove your assertions or postulates except your own ignorance of others' religions and your definite anti-Semitism.
Game over. Play again? Y/N
You mean those things that let flyover country force a right-wing government on the urban and coastal populations?
Damn sight better than welcoming our hermaphroditic, anthrophobic, telekinetic overlords!
What in God's name is that crap?
You know why they don't get complaints from Jews? Because in the past century, the Jewish population of Europe (including England) shrank by an order of magnitude. You know why? Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.
They don't get complaints from Jews because there are barely any Jews left there to complain!
So do you ACs have any sources for this moon god stuff? Because the Wikipedia page for "Allah" says nothing about it.
First of all, bullshit. Put down the Sam Harris books and go outside for a while. You might find that the large majority of your perfectly-tolerant neighbors and fellow citizens believe in a religion. Unless, of course, you live in a fundamentalist area, in which case you are simply reacting to your environment.
Next, not all religions demand that believers "Spread the Word". Examples of those that don't: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, the Ancient Greek Religion. In fact, I do believe that Islam and Christianity are the only two evangelistic religions. Woops, there goes your argument.
Sounds good to me. In fact, let's amend that
X: love it or leave it, for any nation X.